I don't do much cataloging, batch processing, slides, or booking. I have used CS5 and the Camera RAW component seems similar to that of LR4, albeit not as current. I like to consolidate my usage to just CS6. The only feature in Lightroom 4 that I don't think I see is the MAPS feature for geotagging.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/from_the_john/

I don't do much cataloging, batch processing, slides, or booking. I have used CS5 and the Camera RAW component seems similar to that of LR4, albeit not as current. I like to consolidate my usage to just CS6. The only feature in Lightroom 4 that I don't think I see is the MAPS feature for geotagging.
--

LR beats PS at processing groups of raw files. PS beats LR at editing non-raw files. If I could have only one, I'd pick PS. The LR catalog was attractive to me, but apparently not to you. Seems like you are making the right choice, based on your functional preferences.

But .. if cost is an issue, be careful. LR price has dropped in half, and PS may have tripled (if you would have upgraded every third version under the previous pricing scheme). You'll have to wait for the launch to get the PS CS 6 pricing details.
--
JerryG

I never understood the concept of posting in a forum and essentially telling people not to post. It's like going into strip club and telling the ladies to keep their clothes on. Why exactly are you here, then?

If you compare PS to LR feature to feature, LR has no advantage or loses.
...

This is simply not so. To name a few major feature differences, LR has a database, PS has none. PS allows multiple layers, LR only one. Most importantly, PS is primarily a pixel editor, LR is not The list of feature differences igoes on and on.

Its best to compare Lightroom as an alternative to Bridge/ACR in Photoshop. If you are satisfied with using Bridge in PS to manage your photographs as apposed to the Library Module in LR then having Photoshop CS6 alone would be fine.
--
Denis de Gannes

In this particular case, you are wrong. the OP listed the things he doesn't do, he was remarkably short on the things he is looking FOR. He gave us virtually nothing in terms of criteria with which to help him. The only rational response is to suggest he try them out.

As mentioned earlier ; Lightroom is specialised in converting raw files. For instance it offers +4 and -4 stops exposure to rescue even the darkest or whitest photos. Other plus for Lightroom is the (personal) recepies for ouput (print, web and so on).

On the other hand Photoshop exceeds with advanced photo editing (removing objects, warp and so). And ofcourse the absence of the half baked categories is also a plus for Photoshop / Bridge combo.

If you compare PS to LR feature to feature, LR has no advantage or loses.
...

This is simply not so. To name a few major feature differences, LR has a database, PS has none. PS allows multiple layers, LR only one. Most importantly, PS is primarily a pixel editor, LR is not The list of feature differences igoes on and on.

The list of features does not go on and on. Aside from the database, map, and books, 90% of the features in Lightroom are also covered in Camera Raw and Bridge, which come with Photoshop. If you buy Photoshop, you have those features in the box, even though they are not in Photoshop itself. I find that most people who come up with a list of "major differences" between Lightroom and "Photoshop" tend to be unfamiliar with the full power of Camera Raw and Bridge. Understand that I am a big fan and user of Lightroom over ACR, it's just that on a spec-by-spec basis, it looks like there is virtually no difference. Anyway, it's useful to point that out because it just highlights how the concrete advantage of Lightroom is not in the feature list at all, but in the workflow.

daMatrix
wrote:

Have you tried them both?

As mentioned earlier ; Lightroom is specialised in converting raw files. For instance it offers +4 and -4 stops exposure to rescue even the darkest or whitest photos. Other plus for Lightroom is the (personal) recepies for ouput (print, web and so on).

See, this is a good example. Bridge and Camera Raw, which comes with Photoshop, can also do all of that. The exposure range of Camera Raw is
identical
to Lightroom (Ok ok, Lightroom 4 may have an advantage until the new ACR comes out, but then they will be EVEN again.) You can make presets (recipes) in Camera Raw. You can apply them to mass images in Bridge. You can export directly to JPEG, TIFF, etc. from Camera Raw. There is very little they can't actually do, out of what people usually and very erroneously claim constantly.

Lightroom is better at the overall workflow. Not the feature list (except for LR4 map and books.)

The list of features does not go on and on. Aside from the database, map, and books, 90% of the features in Lightroom are also covered in Camera Raw and Bridge, which come with Photoshop. If you buy Photoshop, you have those features in the box, even though they are not in Photoshop itself. I find that most people who come up with a list of "major differences" between Lightroom and "Photoshop" tend to be unfamiliar with the full power of Camera Raw and Bridge. Understand that I am a big fan and user of Lightroom over ACR, it's just that on a spec-by-spec basis, it looks like there is virtually no difference. Anyway, it's useful to point that out because it just highlights how the concrete advantage of Lightroom is not in the feature list at all, but in the workflow.
...

After reading your response, I'm not sure we have that much disagreement. I was not advocating the superiority of one program over the other. For my purposes they have areas of overlap, but enough differences that make them both highly desirable for my work. Like you, I prefer the LR workflow for unlayered (raw) images. But I much prefer the precision and accuracy of virtually all of Photoshop's pixel editing tools over their parametric LR "equivalents." When I get down to serious editing -- compositing, layer work, cmyk adjustments-- PS is the only option. Whether one calls these differences "features," "workflow," or something else doesn't matter. There are big functional differences betweeen the two apps.

I still disagree with you that Bridge is somehow equivalent to LR's database. They can not be used in the same way. For example, I just accessed about 30,000 images in 2 or 3 seconds with LR. I clicked on "All Images" in the catalog panel, and my 3 image drives stopped clicking in less than a handful of seconds. I'd be waiting a half-hour to do that with bridge--if it is even possible. I have several images that are too large for bridge to display individually! That's the functional difference between a database program (LR) and a file browser (Bridge).

LR and ACR do the same kinds of things, but LR lets me work faster.

Bridge and LR's catalog do the same knds of things, but LR is so much faster that search possibilities open up that would likely ceash Bridge.

PS Layers (pixel, text, and adjustment) and more powerful tools allow complex, detailed and precise control over every pixel, the likes of which LR can not not approach.

I suppose if those who only know one of these programs, may not know what they are missing. Or, if you know both but don't really push either, you may not appreciate the special "skills" of each. Me? I'm happy to be alive while photography has such incredible tools to work with. Love them both!

After reading your response, I'm not sure we have that much disagreement. I was not advocating the superiority of one program over the other. For my purposes they have areas of overlap, but enough differences that make them both highly desirable for my work. Like you, I prefer the LR workflow for unlayered (raw) images. But I much prefer the precision and accuracy of virtually all of Photoshop's pixel editing tools over their parametric LR "equivalents." When I get down to serious editing -- compositing, layer work, cmyk adjustments-- PS is the only option. Whether one calls these differences "features," "workflow," or something else doesn't matter. There are big functional differences betweeen the two apps.

I still disagree with you that Bridge is somehow equivalent to LR's database. They can not be used in the same way. For example, I just accessed about 30,000 images in 2 or 3 seconds with LR. I clicked on "All Images" in the catalog panel, and my 3 image drives stopped clicking in less than a handful of seconds. I'd be waiting a half-hour to do that with bridge--if it is even possible. I have several images that are too large for bridge to display individually! That's the functional difference between a database program (LR) and a file browser (Bridge).

LR and ACR do the same kinds of things, but LR lets me work faster.

Bridge and LR's catalog do the same knds of things, but LR is so much faster that search possibilities open up that would likely ceash Bridge.

PS Layers (pixel, text, and adjustment) and more powerful tools allow complex, detailed and precise control over every pixel, the likes of which LR can not not approach.

We don't disagree about too much. I agree that the LR database is better than Bridge's caches. And I also remembered that LR has some nice compare and before/after features. Hopefully, our discussion helped make the real issues clearer for others.

Me? I'm happy to be alive while photography has such incredible tools to work with. Love them both!